Recent Articleshttp://prospect.org/authors/127553/rss.xml
The American Prospect - articles by authorenFighting Terrorism With Educationhttp://prospect.org/article/fighting-terrorism-education
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><a href="http://www.kashmirfamily.org/">Kashmir Family Aid</a> is an Oregon-based nonprofit founded by author and telecommunications executive Sam Carpenter. The group funds secular schools in the Kashmir region in an attempt to combat poverty and, thereby, reduce the number of people from the region entering violent radical groups. <i>TAP</i> spoke with Carpenter about his goals and role in the region. </p>
<p><b>Daniel Strauss:</b> How will secular education counter terrorism? </p>
<p><b>Sam Carpenter:</b> What I found was [that] there's three types of schools. There's public schools provided by the government and private schools -- somewhat secular schools that are funded by regular folks over there -- and it's about a 50-50 split. Let me talk about what's taught in those schools: English, math, science, and a reasonable amount of history, and they have textbooks and the whole thing. But there's another kind of school over there, which I'm certain you've heard of, called a Madrassa, and these are religious schools. </p>
<p>The estimates are between fifteen- and twenty-thousand of them in Pakistan alone, and then there's a lot of them in Afghanistan. The long story short is that the kids spend 10 to 12 years -- they go in there at an early age, and they learn the Koran, and that's great, but they don't learn anything else to speak of, a little bit of math, but not much. They come out without a lot of skills. About 15 [percent] to 20 percent I estimate of those schools are what we call militant schools where the kids are taught that, well basically, that the jihad is against the West, and by the time they get out of those schools -- who knows what percentage, but a good number of those students are put right into the jihad ranks and given paid jobs to learn to fight, and so they're paid a very, very high wage, in our money $200 to $300 a month, to carry machine guns and become a jihadist. </p>
<p>Most of the citizenry would much prefer to have the public or private or non-Madrassa-type secular school for their children, but so many times there are no other schools besides the religious Madrassas. These Madrassas are funded by Saudi Arabia cash, and there's a lot of them over there. Greg Mortenson, in his book <i>Three Cups of Tea</i>, talks extensively about this. </p>
<p><b>D.S.:</b> What is the connection between women's rights and terrorism? </p>
<p><b>S.C.:</b> Our primary goal is to get these kids a secular education, and then we see what happens when they get it. They're probably going to be teachers and doctors and community people -- organizing people, rather than jihadists, so the primary goal is not to fight terrorism, but that's a very important spinoff. </p>
<p>Most of the women over there pretty much stay at home, do not go out, especially in the rural areas, except to get water, to take care of the fields and so forth, and you talk about women's rights -- this is an amazing place in terms of improving women's rights over the long term. Is it any of our business? I don't know, but I don't think it hurts to teach a child; I just don't see a problem with that, and so whatever comes out of that is probably going to be more a good thing than a bad thing. More education is a better thing. D.S.: What are your goals for the next few years? </p>
<p><b>S.C.:</b> We're helping about a half a dozen [schools] right now. When you walk in the schools, you see about 200 children with faces and names, and you realize you can do this 200 children at a time, and so instead of looking at the vast challenge over there, we are concentrating on maybe the 1,200 kids that we've been able to directly help, and we're just going to try to expand that number over time. </p>
<p><b>D.S.:</b> How much opposition is there to your efforts in Kashmir? It's a pretty dangerous region. </p>
<p><b>S.C.:</b> Last year I was in Azad Kashmir; we were literally thrown out by the chief of police on a technicality. One of the biggest problems we have over there is the corruption of the local officials, and I have been repeatedly petitioned to give the money to the government and let them hand it out. It's incredibly corrupt; that money would never get to the children, and because I insist on paying the teachers in cash and helping the school administrators in cash, we're not real popular over there with the local government officials. </p>
<p>However, the prime minister of Azad Kashmir, who we talked to for about 45 minutes last time we were there, is very, very enthusiastic about us being there. He's fighting this bottom-line corruption, too, and some of the higher officials I've met with, President Musharraf, are very, very interested in going in there and doing exactly what we're doing and bringing those children up and families up into a more educated state. </p>
<p><b>D.S.:</b> What role do U.S relations with Pakistan have on your work, if any? </p>
<p><b>S.C.:</b> You know it's an interesting question; it's kind of a love-hate relationship. You talk to the average Pakistani, they don't like America at all, but if you talk to them on a one-on-one level, they like Americans. You get that argument all over the world. "We don't like your government and your policies but we like you people," and I think that's probably pretty true. The government that is in power right now, it's an odd government in the sense that it's less religiously fundamentally driven than it was before, and yet it is in disarray; it's very much in disarray. They can't handle what's happening in their northwest territories. The United States keeps pumping cash into the place because it's an ally. ... There's so much corruption, you don't know which way the government is going, and yet there are these kids that need to learn, and our biggest problem are the adults over there and getting the money to the kids and trying to figure out what's going to happen next. </p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:37:54 +0000147467 at http://prospect.orgDaniel StraussMCCAIN GOES TO HOLLYWOOD (WELL, NORTH HOLLYWOOD).http://prospect.org/article/mccain-goes-hollywood-well-north-hollywood
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>So what was with that whole green background during <strong>McCain</strong>'s speech last night? <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/213806.php" target="_blank"><strong>Josh Marshall</strong>'s readers at TPM</a> found that the background was the lawn of one <a href="http://reedmstech.com/home/" target="_blank">Walter Reed Middle School</a> in Los Angeles' North Hollywood neighborhood which further raises the question 'Was it supposed to be Walter Reed Hospital?' The middle school's name may just be a coincidence since the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reed_Middle_School" target="_blank">school has made cameos</a> in both tv shows and movies including:
</p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090444/" target="_blank"><em>Head of the Class</em></a></li>
<p></p>
<li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088527/" target="_blank">Growing Pains</a></li>
<p></p>
<li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115083/" target="_blank">7th Heaven</a></li>
<p></p>
<li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0247082/" target="_blank">CSI</a></li>
<p></p>
<li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212671/" target="_blank">Malcom in the Middle</a></li>
<p></p>
<li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/" target="_blank"><em>Transformers</em></a></li>
<p></p>
<li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0245686/" target="_blank"><em>Joe Dirt</em></a></li>
<p></p>
<li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095519/" target="_blank"><em>License to Drive</em></a></li>
<p></p>
<li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0393735/" target="_blank"><em>The Shaggy Dog</em></a></li>
<p></p>
<li><a href="http://www.whosdatedwho.com/topic/6203/little-big-men.htm" target="_blank"><em>Little Big Men</em></a></li>
<p></p>
<li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0384793/" target="_blank"><em>Accepted</em></a></li>
<p></p>
<li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0809497/" target="_blank">Tell Me You Love Me</a>
</li>
</ul><p>Maybe the McCain Campaign meant to show the Middle School to get the hollywood tv and film producer vote...?</p>
<p><em>--Daniel Strauss</em></p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:19:23 +0000196606 at http://prospect.orgDaniel StraussA BRIEF HISTORY OF PALIN SCANDALS.http://prospect.org/article/brief-history-palin-scandals
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>It's getting hard for a political journalist to keep track of all the scandals surrounding <b>Sarah Palin</b> -- and she's only been <b>John McCain</b>'s VP pick for six days! Here's a list, though I can't promise it'll still be accurate by the time you read it:</p>
<ul><li>Palin, who based her political career on ethics and touted her opposition to earmarks in her first speech with McCain on Friday, presided, as mayor of Wasilla Alaska, over an aggressive attempt to attract earmarks -- <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,6145252.story">including three </a>that made it onto McCain's annual "pork list."
</li>
<li>Palin falsely claimed to have opposed Alaska’s bridge to nowhere. Turns out at first she was <a href="http://dailyhowler.com/dh090208.shtml">for it</a> before she was against it.</li>
<li>Palin bills herself as a reformer, but she was closely <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/breaking_us_sen_ted_stevens_in.php">linked</a> to now-indicted Sen. <b>Ted Stevens</b> who himself is embroiled in scandal -- including <a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/palin_ran_ted_stevens_527.php">running</a> his 527.</li>
<li>Not so long ago, Palin publicly stated, very clearly, that she had <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/29/sarah-palin-what-exactly_n_122514.html">no idea</a> what the vice president does. </li>
<li>Palin was also <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html">associated</a> with a group that wants Alaska to secede from the United States.</li>
<li>Palin <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/29/palin-globalwarming-manmade/">does not think</a> global warming is man-made.</li>
<li>As mayor of Wasilla, Palin <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5713866">fired</a> a police chief for antagonizing campaign contributors.</li>
<li>And as governor of Alaska, Palin <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/08/exclusive_chief_fired_by_palin.html">fired</a> Alaska’s public safety commissioner, allegedly because he had refused to fire Sarah’s brother-in-law who at the time was in a bitter divorce with Palin's sister.</li>
</ul><p>John McCain revealed his vice president the day after <b>Barack Obama</b>’s speech to distract the public. That worked, but probably not in the way he hoped. </p>
<p><i>--Daniel Strauss</i></p>
</div></div></div>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:31:27 +0000196565 at http://prospect.orgDaniel StraussMORE GOP VEEP SPECULATION.http://prospect.org/article/more-gop-veep-speculation
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>Which potential GOP VP would be a good counter to <strong>Biden</strong>? <em>Politico </em>has an interesting <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12867.html">article</a> assessing each of <b>McCain</b>'s vice presidential prospects. The article recognizes the strengths and weaknesses (mainly weaknesses) of <b>Mitt Romney</b> ( too rich -- together Romney and McCain are worth $35 million), <b>Joe Lieberman</b> (too Democratic and he's worked closely with Biden on labor issues and abortion rights), and <b>Tom Ridge </b>(an advocate of abortion rights, and he's got some questionable lobbyist ties). That leaves <b>Tim Pawlenty</b>, who <i>Politico </i>portrays as a walking talking-point -- incapable of doing anything but spouting Bush Administration rhetoric. When you compare that to the others Pawlenty sounds like the best choice. </p>
<p>But he's still a weak candidate -- he's young and inexperienced compared to Biden which undermines the experience contrast Republicans are trying to draw between Obama and McCain. It would seem a little hypocritical to make the opposite argument for the vice president. And in a vice presidential debate Pawlenty -- known to be even more inelegant than Biden when it comes to speaking -- would get ripped to shreds. Remember Biden's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPOAKXBi9Pw&amp;NR=1">best moment</a> running for the nomination was when he picked at <b>Giuliani</b>'s argument that he's qualified to be president because of his performance on 9/11. Expect the same types of attacks of unpreparedness from Biden if Pawlenty is McCain's pick.</p>
<p>Pawlenty isn't always good with the words either. <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/06/the_case_against_tim_pawlenty.html">On a radioshow</a> he said in reference to his wife "She loves football, she'll go to hockey games and, I jokingly say: Now, if I could only get her to have sex with me." That's not the typical tone of a vice presidential candidate. Further moments like those could make even Biden look on-message and sensible. I get the feeling that it'll probably be Pawlenty just because he doesn't have as many downsides as the rest but he's still a candidate lacking far too much.</p>
<p>--<i>Daniel Strauss</i></p>
</div></div></div>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:57:01 +0000196463 at http://prospect.orgDaniel StraussWHY DID RUSSIA INVADE GEORGIA? WHY, OBAMA, OF COURSE!http://prospect.org/article/why-did-russia-invade-georgia-why-obama-course
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>At The Corner, <b>Andy McCarthy</b> <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmIxMGNhOGMyYzFhNDA5ODRmZjVhNjVmMWEzMWMyOTg=">not so subtly implies</a> that the Russia-Georgia conflict is <b>Obama</b>'s fault:</p>
<blockquote><p>
I suppose if we are thinking about turning our country over to the second Carter term — or the first McGovern — it shouldn't surprise anyone to see Russia go into its Afghanistan mode ... or Czechoslovakia ... or Hungary ... or (as Roger reminds us) Georgia.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Whoa there, cowboy. I think what McCarthy is suggesting is that Obama's "weakness" encourages Cold War style aggression from Russia. But earth to The Corner (I know, they're far apart from one another) -- BHO hasn't been elected yet. And as <a href="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=08&amp;year=2008&amp;base_name=wait_for_the_facts_to_make_a_d"><b>Sam</b></a> pointed out earlier, Obama's diplomacy-focused position on Georgia is basically indistinguishable from President <b>Bush</b>'s. No one would accuse Bush of fostering a Carter-esque foreign policy regime.</p>
<p><em>--Daniel Strauss</em></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:24:27 +0000196238 at http://prospect.orgDaniel StraussCongress' New Watchmenhttp://prospect.org/article/congress-new-watchmen
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>Former Reps. David Skaggs and Porter Goss were recently <a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/goss-among-former-members-appointed-to-ethics-office-2008-07-24.html">named</a> co-chairs of the new Office of Congressional Ethics by House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader John Boehner. The office is meant to act as a way for private citizens to express complaints about the House to congressional members. The OCE is not planned to have subpoena power and will only serve to review complaints and forward them to the House Ethics Committee if it deems it necessary. <i>TAP</i> interviewed the co-chairs about their new jobs in the OCE. </p>
<p>Before his recent appointment to the OCE, David Skaggs headed Colorado's Department of Higher Education. Porter Goss started a national security consulting company and was director of the CIA before President Bush replaced him with Gen. Michael V. Hayden <a href=" http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0508/dailyUpdate.html">amid</a> allegations of corruption by subordinates and mismanagement. Other members of the newly created office include former Reps. Yvonne Brathwaite Burke and Karan English, former House Chief Administrator Jay Eagan, and Allison Hayward, former chief of staff to Bradley Smith, a commissioner of the Federal Election Commission. Former Reps. Abner Mikva and Bill Frenzel are alternate board members. </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Daniel Strauss:</span> How will you two coordinate the leadership of the Office of Congressional Ethics? </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">David Skaggs: </span>I think to some degree that's going to be a "we'll develop it as we go" proposition. Porter and I worked together when we were both members, he longer than I, but he was my chairman when I was on the Intelligence Committee, and I think we have a pretty good sense of our ability to work together. </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Porter Goss:</span> That's very much ditto for me. For this to work there has got to be a spirit of positive optimism and cooperation. Obviously, there's politics in anything that goes on in Washington, but to avoid the partisanship of those politics is the aim here. In order to enhance the capabilities, as the legislation says, of the Committee on Standards in the House, to have a proof system to perhaps get a better outcome. That's really what the legislation talks about. </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Strauss:</span> The board of the office is made up of ex-representatives. How will their background and experience as ex-representatives, both on the Democratic and Republican side, shape the office? </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Skaggs:</span> It's not entirely former members. Two of the members -- well one is a former chief administrative officer of the House and another, I'm not sure if Professor Hayward has any House staff experience, but I'm not sure about that, but she was on the Federal Election Commission staff, so we're not all former members. I think to the extent that six of the eight when you include the alternates Bill Frenzel and Ab Mikva, you know, there's got to be a commonsense element in the way one deals with these very problematic cases, and I think the experience and I hope the judgment that the six of us who have served the institution as members will bring to this task will enable us to do a better job for the American public as well as for the current members. </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Goss:</span> I think the confidence-building aspect of this was probably what the House leadership is after in some part, and I think that having some former members on the board gives us at least some people who have walked a mile in the shoes of the people who will be brought to attention of the board. </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Strauss: </span>To an extent, the OCE seems like a response to the failures of the House Ethics Committee. How is this office going to be different from the HEC? </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Goss:</span> I think in that debate we've had some people from outside of Congress saying, "There needs to be a way for us to file complaints, bring things to people's attention; there needs to be sort of a public window we can go up to in the House of Representatives and say, 'we think you ought to look at this' or 'this is serious and we want to file a complaint,' so against that you've got to balance the constitutional requirements of the conduct of Congress, which means you've got speech and debate and the other protections that no one other than presumably the members are supposed to deal with the conduct of members. </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Skaggs:</span> In addition to agreeing with Porter on what he's expressed, I'd say that this, I think, reflects an appreciation by the members of the House as well as the leadership that an additional increment for public accountability is appropriate these days, and they are looking for the right way to do that consistent with those constitutional prerogatives that the House needs to hold onto for judging its own members ultimately. </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Goss:</span> If I could just add I agree totally with that, and I think it's very important to point out that this is not a comment in any way on the present committee. ... I think there's going to be more evolution on process and ethics over the years. Of course, the Senate is going a different way, so I don't think there's a magic answer to this. </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Strauss: </span>What have been some instances in the past where the OCE would have been useful? </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Skaggs:</span> One, I really don't have a good example to cite, and if I did I'm afraid it would necessarily involve getting into a judgment about conduct, and that's exactly the sort of thing that we're going to be charged with doing and as impartial a way as we can and in confidence, and so I think I need to take a pass on that particular speculation. </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Goss: </span>I totally agree with that judgment. That's correct. </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Strauss:</span> How will you guys go about impartiality in individual cases? </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Goss: </span>My answer is the people will be asked to check their politics at the door and make the judgments on the merits of the case. </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Skaggs: </span>Really, our commitment to agreeing to do this entails that obligation. I also think because we're all human and imperfect there will be wisdom and impartiality that is derived from the collective judgment of six people who will bring in their experience and good sense into looking at what are almost always going to be difficult fact circumstances and figuring out whether a particular conduct has been on one side or the other on the line of proper behavior. </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Strauss:</span> Mr. Skaggs you're known as a rather bipartisan figure, and Mr. Goss you're known as a tougher partisan. How are you going to deal with those differences as co-chairs? </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Skaggs:</span> Let me make a preemptive strike on this one. First of all, to the extent that I tried to weigh in on behalf of a more collegial way of doing business in the house, I was doing that as a Democrat, not because I have no partisan blood in my veins, but I can also tell you that one of the best object lessons that I had while I was a member in the way members of the two parties can work together for the national interest was on the House Intelligence Committee, which, for part of the time I was on it, was lead by Mr. Goss, so we shouldn't conflate or suggest that there's a dichotomy between caring about bipartisanship and remaining about certain issues still people who have a point of view. </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Goss: </span>It's a fair question you ask, "Can we make distinction between partisan politics and doing the job in a political atmosphere?" And I have total confidence that Mr. Skaggs —that Chairman Skaggs can do that. I've worked with him, and I know for a fact that he can get the meat and potatoes on the plate without all the fanfare partisan politics there, and I believe that if you have made a fair rating in my most recent activities in public life that you would discover that I eschewed any partisan politics during my confirmation process for the intelligence work I did. It is true that I was working for a Republican administration, but I think you will find that there was absolutely no partisan politics or statements made or activities that might be, and I actually went to great lengths to prohibit that by all sides. </p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Skaggs: </span>Maybe I wasn't absolutely black-and-white in what I said, but there is no qualifying or caveating aspect at all in my mind about our, that is Porter and [my], ability to work together on this and doing it in a way that doesn't get complicated by any partisan considerations. </p>
</div></div></div>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:39:35 +0000147379 at http://prospect.orgDaniel StraussISN'T HAVING HISTORY OF BEING, YOU KNOW, ETHICAL IMPORTANT FOR RUNNING AN ETHICS OFFICE?http://prospect.org/article/isnt-having-history-being-you-know-ethical-important-running-ethics-office
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><b>Nancy Pelosi </b>and <b>John Boehner </b>have named a group dominated by ex-representatives (including <b>Abner </b>"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_J._Mikva">nobody that nobody sent</a>" <b>Mikva</b>) to run the new Office of Congressional Ethics including Republican former <span class="caps">CIA</span> Director <b>Porter Goss</b> who will co-chair the office with democratic ex-Rep. <b>David Skaggs</b>. Recall that Goss was one of the main backers of the <span class="caps">USA PATRIOT </span>act which sadly didn't seem to keep him in <b>Bush</b>'s good graces as the president replaced Goss with Gen. <b>Michael Haydon </b>soon after. Goss was also against a public 9-11 commission. He finally got the boot from Bush after the <span class="caps">FBI </span>raided subordnate <b>Dusty Foggo</b>'s office and home and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/washington/07inquire.html">connected </a>Foggo to the <b>Brent Wilkes</b>/<b>Duke Cunningham</b> <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/000481.php">scandal</a>. He sounds like the perfect guy to lead an ethics oversight office.</p>
<p><i>--Daniel Strauss</i></p>
</div></div></div>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:01:14 +0000196088 at http://prospect.orgDaniel StraussCOULD UNSEEN MEMOS FINALLY LEAD TO CONSEQUENCES FOR ADVOCATES OF TORTURE?http://prospect.org/article/could-unseen-memos-finally-lead-consequences-advocates-torture
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><strong>Jane Mayer</strong> <a href="http://newamerica.net/events/2008/terror_torture_and_dark_side">discussed</a> her <a href="http://americanprospect.bookswelike.net/isbn/0385526393">new book</a> <em>The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals</em>, with <strong>Steven Clemons</strong> today at The New America Foundation. The discussion touched on a number of topics in Mayer's book but the most engaging and disturbing part of the discussion was when Mayer was asked if anyone within the <b>Bush </b>White House are war criminals:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"As a political reporter, I've covered the White House since the <b>Reagan </b>era, off and on, so I really see this much more as a political question than a legal question. ... You have to ask yourself 'do you see the appetite in this country for putting people on trial who could say that they were trying to protect America in a difficult time?' I think it's a real stretch to think that the public is the public is going to demand that these people go on trial."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But perhaps that would change if some of the still "unsolved mysteries" Mayer mentioned were uncovered:</p>
<blockquote><p>"There are a number of legal memos nobody's seen, we've never seen the list of interrogation techniques that have been approved by this country. There are cases where people have disappeared, there are some where people seem to have been killed -- we really don't know everything yet and I would like to see at some point the books open and maybe hearings of some sort so that we can at least learn what the country's been doing and think about which part is worth it and which part is not."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But for these mysteries to have consequences for administration torture-backers the American public first must deal with the reality that, as Mayer says, torture has made us less safe. Sadly that's probably not going to happen.</p>
<p><b>Update:</b> Also see <b>Ryan Grim</b>'s just-posted <a href="http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=looking_at_the_dark_side">review </a>of Mayer's book on the site today. </p>
<p><i>--Daniel Strauss</i> </p>
</div></div></div>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:01:23 +0000196007 at http://prospect.orgDaniel StraussMCCAIN'S PROBLEM IS WHAT HE'S SAYING, NOT HOW HE SAYS IT.http://prospect.org/article/mccains-problem-what-hes-saying-not-how-he-says-it
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><a href="http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles/election_08"><img src="http://www.prospect.org/galleries/blog-images/New_Election08_SqButton.jpg" vspace="5" align="left" hspace="10" /></a>
</p><p>I attended a panel today on political speeches at The New America Foundation moderated by <a href="http://www.newamerica.net/people/steve_coll"><b>Steve Coll</b></a> with <a href="http://www.newamerica.net/people/michael_a_cohen"><b>Michael A. Cohen</b></a>, <a href="http://www.newamerica.net/people/james_pinkerton"><b>James Pinkerton</b></a>, and <a href="http://www.greenbergresearch.com/index.php?ID=825"><b>Jeremy Rosner</b></a>. Rosner had probably the best point of the day. He said <b></b>that the problem with <b>McCain</b>'s speeches is that he hasn't figured out a political strategy yet: </p>
<blockquote><p>"I think John McCain faces a deeper problem than staff shakeups which is that he hasn't figured out a political strategy. ... A lot of people have noted he's just very incoherently between the right and the center, between offshore drilling and $300 million prizes for new electric batteries. ... He just hasn't figured out a strategy for being a presidential candidate. My advice is that he needs to sort of place a clear bet on whether he's trying to do another <b>Karl Rove</b> base consolidation strategy or whether he's truly trying to gun for the middle and change the Republican party -- he just hasn't figured that out. Until he does that he's not going to solve the sense of inauthenticity that he's suddenly stumbled into, he's not going to solve the staff shakeups and everything else."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Cohen agreed: </p>
<blockquote><p>"If I were to ask all of you here 'What is <b>Barack Obama</b>'s key message for his campaign?' most of you could probably could answer pretty quickly, I'm assuming you would say change. If I asked you all the same question about John McCain's campaign message I'm seeing a lot of blank faces. It's a much harder question to answer and I think that's a key problem. I don't think he has a clear message of why he wants to be president or what he wants his presidency to entail."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And if all those faces were blank at a think tank, imagine how many more there would be at any political rally. Obama, for all his much-vaunted speaking ability, is really successful for a much simpler reason than most people realize: He actually has something to say. </p>
<p><i>--Daniel Strauss</i></p>
</div></div></div>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:33:45 +0000195969 at http://prospect.orgDaniel StraussMCCAIN SCRATCHES CONTRACTOR BACKS.http://prospect.org/article/mccain-scratches-contractor-backs
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>You'd think both <strong>John McCain</strong> and <strong>Barack Obama</strong> would support competition for government contracts, alongside every other reasonable person. A healthy competition means the end product is the best possible, right? Consider the the Northrop Grumman vs. Boeing <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19tanker.html?scp=1&amp;sq=Boeing+tanker&amp;st=nyt">competition</a> to build a fleet of refueling tankers for the Air Force. Originally the Air Force awarded the contract to Northrop Grumman. Boeing appealed to the Government Accountability Office, which <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501534.html">found</a> that the Air Force had not been thorough enough in its decision making; the Grumman planes were not superior in cost or design. The GAO recommended the Air Force reopen the bidding process.</p>
<p>Obama agreed, but surprisingly, McCain didn't, siding with Northrop Grumman. McCain had actually been <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2241563520080622?sp=true">trying to sway</a> the Air Force in favor of Grumman for a while -- among McCain's staff are lobbyists for the manufacturing contractor. It's ironic that McCain, who flaunts his military and defense positions like nobody's business, would not want the Air Force to have the best possible equipment available. It seems he's more interested in making his friends happy.</p>
<p><em>--Daniel Strauss</em></p>
</div></div></div>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:50:21 +0000195870 at http://prospect.orgDaniel StraussTHE WASHINGTON POST WILL GET A NEW EDITOR.http://prospect.org/article/washington-post-will-get-new-editor
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><i><b>Editors' Note:</b> <b>Daniel Strauss</b> is a summer 2008 </i>Prospect<i> editorial intern. </i></p>
<p><b>Leonard Downie Jr.</b>, the longest serving executive editor of <i>The Washington Post,</i> announced today that he will step down Sept. 8. His announcement ends longtime speculation that the recently named Publisher <b>Katharine Weymouth</b> wanted to install her own editor as part of her time as the head of Washington's flagship newspaper. <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0608/WaPos_Downie_retires_as_editor.html">Word </a>on the street (the media gossip street that is) is that <b>Jonathan Landman</b>, digital editor of <i>The New York Times</i> and <b>Marcus Brauchli</b>, formerly of <i>The Wall Street Journal</i>, are in the lead to become the next editor. Whoever the next editor is, he or she will be only the third editor of the <i>Post </i>since the 60s.
</p>
<p>Downie's retirement signals Weymouth's interest in having an executive editor more familiar with the panicked digital age of journalism, where newspapers are frantically trying to attract as many readers as they used to to print to the newspaper's websites. Landman sounds like a perfect fit supposedly and the Post's website could be better. Still, under Downie, the <i>Post</i> has added some interesting content like The Fix and PostGlobal.</p>
<p> Under Downie, The Post has earned 25 Pulitzers. Becoming executive editor of the <i>Post </i>after Downie is a tough act to follow for nearly anyone. </p>
<p>--<i>Daniel Strauss<br /></i></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:59:04 +0000195840 at http://prospect.orgDaniel Strauss